So I thought it was time to do a thread on the BC proportional representation referendum. My general take is that there is no perfect system, and it's always going to be a question of tradeoffs. The thing voters need to think about is, what kind of democracy do they want? 1/
E.g. representation: do you like the idea of having a single local representative who represents your part of the province even if you don't agree with them? Or do you care more about seeing someone who shares your views in the leg, even if that local relationship is diluted? 2/
Govt style is another tradeoff. FPTP creates majority (or occasionally minority) govts where a single party implements its agenda, slowed primarily by rule of law and public opinion as filtered through caucus. A minority of the population sees exactly what it wants in govt. 3/
Under PR, you are more likely to see coalitions. Parties have to compromise to form government. No one will get exactly what they want, but in general more BCers will see some portion of the government's agenda they like. 4/
A third tradeoff concerns accountability. Under FPTP, voters hold a single MLA, and party, to account. Under PR that relationship is weakened somewhat, but as a tradeoff, coalition partners in are positioned to hold one another to account, acting as a check on one another. 5/
Another way to frame it is to ask, where do you want to see the conversation? Where should difficult decisions get made? In FPTP, this happens inside big tent parties, as they hammer out their agenda. In PR, it happens more often btwn parties as they compromise on priorities. 6/
I think this is a good way to think about the extremism question as well. Every society has fringe views. Changing the system doesn't alter that fact—you don't get more or less extremism. Instead, it changes how such views are incorporated into the political system. 7/
Under FPTP, that conversation with fringe views often happens inside big tent parties. Often those views get watered down or drowned out completely. Other times they can be picked up, amplified and occasionally even normalized. 8/
Under PR, those conversations are more likely to occur between parties. The number of extremists doesn't change (in BC, for what its worth, the proportion of the population holding such fringe views would seem to be quite low), but how and where they are heard would change. 9/
So, those are the kinds of tradeoffs worth thinking about. All relate to the big question: do you want PR, or do you like our current system? The choice between PR systems is important, but secondary in my view. All get to a roughly similar result via different paths. 10/
I'll end there for now. If this is helpful, let me know. If you have questions or objections, let me know that, too. I'll try to flesh out these points or address the questions and critiques at some point down the line. 11/11
